REILP Approach for Uncertainty-Based Decision Making in Civil Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The civil and environmental decision-making processes are plagued with uncertain, vague, and incomplete information. Interval linear programming (ILP) is a widely applied mathematical programming method in assisting civil and environmental decision making under uncertainty. However, the existing ILP decision approach is found to be ineffective in generating operational schemes for practical decision support due to a lack of linkage between decision risk and system return. In addition, the interpretation of the ILP solutions represented as the lower and upper bounds of decision variables can cause problems of infeasibility and nonoptimality in the resulted implementation schemes. This study proposed a risk explicit ILP (REILP) approach to overcome the limitations of existing ILP approaches. The REILP explicitly reflects the tradeoffs between risk and system return for a decision-making problem under an interval-type uncertainty environment. A risk function was defined to enable finding solutions which maximize system return while minimizing system risk, hence leading to crisp solutions that are feasible and optimal for practical decision making. A numerical experiment on land-use decision making under total maximum daily load was conducted to illustrate the REILP approach. The model results show that the REILP approach is able to efficiently explore the interval uncertainty space and generate an optimal decision front that directly reflects the tradeoff between decision risks and system return, allowing decision makers to make effective decision based on the risk-reward information generated by the REILP modeling analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".